His analysis seems to rise of fall on the following assertion:
Consequences and intention do not enter into the decision, since:
- pulling the lever is intrinsically evil
- and refraining from pulling it is not.
Both those judgements do not seem clear cut to me and are likely prudential.
Like I say, if he holds to two primary moral objects operating at the same time (I am not sure this is true) then no room is left for indirect intent. If the intrinsically evil card is being played for what I am suggesting could be an indirect evil object then obviously Ron does not accept this intent could be indirect.
As I say, I think this point is debatable. I think one can consciously,at some point, decide one must kill in some self defence cases. Its not a fully free decision or intent, but it is conscious and knowing but not strong enough to be called the primary intent of the self-defence scenario. I don’t prima facie see why that
couldn’t play out in the trolley case too.
It would be good for us, and for Ron, if seeing the discussion on CAF he enter into it as he was once want to do rather than free-range here for source material for his blog or article as many do nowadays. Its an old University professor strategy - set your students an assignment that you want to write a book or journal article on and get free research and original ideas.
Who knows, maybe he is one of the participants here .